Chalk Talk Discussion - BPA vs. Need

[sempre_victrix]

we drafted cousins on a bpa basis and not need, and short term that was a bad call. who knows in the long run, but as of this year, it seems like a wasted pick.

Many of us said the same thing about Fred Davis and he turned into a great pick quickly. Let's hope he fully recovers by camp next year.

[RandyHolt]

Let's say our next pick BPA is a QB. Extreme example, but it happened this past draft.

Of course I am one of the few still miffed on taking Cousins, Rex basically a coach taking a roster spot. I do like a GM to be flexible and target obvious team needs, but without making questionable reaches.

A GM has to have balance, and be the expert determining just how much better that BPA is than others he is being considered to be drafted over. If the guy is that much higher rated but you dont need him, take offers on the pick.If there are no offers, maybe he isn't that much better.

Nice thread KD

[darrelgreenie]

BPA at a position of need.
The one caveat is that pass rusher is always a need.

[PapaLazarou]

Very informative! I guess now we can determine whether the F.O is drafting for the long term, or trying to save their skins this coming off-season.

[chipwhich]

The whole problem with BPA is it's a crap shoot.

NFL talent coordinators rarely get the BPA right.

Redskins haven't been able to draft for BPA or position of need very well

One thing good teams don't shy away from, is drafting their scouting departments BPA even though they have other needs. The Ravens constantly would draft defensive players high, year after year, even though they consistently had a top 5 defense, and mediocre offense.

To me, the correct drafting approach is drafting lineman. Period. Offensive and defensive. Without good lineman on either side of the ball, you most likely wont be a good team. Coincidentally, this is the area the Redskins neglected most.

[braindx]

Ideally, you can trade down so that the BPA matches your need, and pick up more picks.

For example, #10 pick in 2011, traded down with Jax to #16 and get a 2nd and pick up Kerrigan of which a pass rushing OLB was a need.

That's the ideal scenario you want. Trading up for BPA I think is very debatable, and only good in some extreme circumstances because you tend to have to give up too much to move up.

One notable example would end be being Eli Manning, and now for us Robert Griffin. I don't know if any trade ups for any position other than QB are really any good unless it was for an extremely superior player compared to the rest of the players at that position. Jerry Rice might come to mind, but I don't know how scouts rated him at the time compared to the other WRs.

I guess in caveat if you're trading up you MUST absolutely be sure you are getting a probowl type player, if not all-pro or HOF type player. Giving up extra high round picks can be particular devastating for a franchise trying to rebuild or even stay on top.

Unfortunately, probably 75+% of the time you can't trade down, so you generally have to make some compromises in terms of need vs BPA. Shanahan/Allen have been pretty good at draft day maneuvering so far though... we'll have to see how these past two draft classes pan out in the next couple of years.

[Oldfan]

The whole problem with BPA is it's a crap shoot.

Nope. It's like hitting a baseball. Hard to do, but some teams hit for a better average than others.

[Mahons21]

Nope. It's like hitting a baseball. Hard to do, but some teams hit for a better average than others.

Can I just reiterate how nice it is to have you posting again OF. You consistently manage to bring intelligent and throught provoking discussion. Thank you.

[MartinC]

Nope. It's like hitting a baseball. Hard to do, but some teams hit for a better average than others.

I think that's a good analogy. You can hit for average or you can hit for distance. If you draft for need your shooting for the stands and your average 'hit' on your pick is going to be lower.

However as others have said when drafting you take your needs into account and if players are close or you have a clear position(s) of strength you factor that in your pick.

[Oldfan]

Can I just reiterate how nice it is to have you posting again OF. You consistently manage to bring intelligent and throught provoking discussion. Thank you.

'Preciate that, Sir.

---------- Post added November-3rd-2012 at 06:29 AM ----------

I think that's a good analogy. You can hit for average or you can hit for distance. If you draft for need your shooting for the stands and your average 'hit' on your pick is going to be lower.

However as others have said when drafting you take your needs into account and if players are close or you have a clear position(s) of strength you factor that in your pick.

That works for me.

[GWinSkins83]

I think Jenkins is the future NT. I think we need a DE that can get pressure on the QB.

[chipwhich]

Nope. It's like hitting a baseball. Hard to do, but some teams hit for a better average than others.

That is not a measurable fact. You cannot provide a statistic.

You don't know teams draft boards, so you don't know if each selection they make is in fact their BPA or a position they are drafting because of need.

I would love to see a measurable stat that shows which teams draft using BPA, what percentage of they draft they went BPA, and what their batting average was for the draft. You can't.

Since BPA is an opinion (you can look at every draft and in retrospect rearrange the picks to show a legitimate BPA at EVERY pick) it really is a crapshoot.

[Oldfan]

That is not a measurable fact. You cannot provide a statistic.

That's true. It's a logical deduction that can't be supported with a stat.

It's a logical deduction because, if the draft was a crapshoot, teams could save a lot of money on scouting. They could replace their draft boards with dart boards and do just as well.

[chipwhich]

It's a logical deduction because, if the draft was a crapshoot, teams could save a lot of money on scouting. They could replace their draft boards with dart boards and do just as well.

Like I said, we don't really know who drafts BPA.

With they way Vinny drafted, a dartboard might have been a better choice. Or just picking Mel Kypers BPA.

My point of building the lines first, it doesn't matter if you pick BPA or pick a position of need. If you don't build a foundation, your picks will in all likelihood fail.

[zoony]

That's true. It's a logical deduction that can't be supported with a stat.

It's a logical deduction because, if the draft was a crapshoot, teams could save a lot of money on scouting. They could replace their draft boards with dart boards and do just as well.

Just like if your theory on QBs being overrated were correct, teams could save a lot of money on contracts. Why pay Tom Brady all that money when any average QB could run the shotgun spread just as effectively?